Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 97 (UTT)

Sachin Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2017-02-14

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs, among others: “(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 20.01.2017, lodged by respondent no. 3, registered as Case Crime No. 27 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467 ,468, 471 and 120-B IPC before S.H.O. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. . (b) Issue a writ, order or direction to the respondent no. 2 not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance to the impugned FIR dated 20.01.2017 lodged by respondent no.3 registered as Case Crime No. 27 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC before S.H.O. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, perused the documents brought on record and considered the grounds taken up in the writ petition. 3. It is the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioners that succession proceedings culminated in the year 1990. Consolidation Suit for cancellation of the sale deed was dismissed in the year 1999. Respondent no.3 executed a sale-deed in favour of the petitioner no. 3 on 30.08.2010. Respondent no. 3 lodged the impugned FIR on 20.01.2017. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the first information report has been lodged not only against the petitioners but also against the Consolidation Officers which is nothing but abuse of process of law. 4. The petitioners should be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe, on the basis of information and material collected, that they have committed an offence. Before making arrest, the Investigating Officer is required to satisfy himself that the arrest is necessary for one or more purposes envisaged by Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. It will not be based upon the ipse dixit of the Police Officer. In other words, the petitioners shall be arrested only when the conditions stipulated in Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. are satisfied. 5. Needless to say that the Investigating Officer of the case shall abide by the aforesaid directions of Hon’ble Apex Court, before affecting the arrest of the petitioner. 6. In other words, the petitioners shall be arrested only when the conditions stipulated in Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. are satisfied. 5. Needless to say that the Investigating Officer of the case shall abide by the aforesaid directions of Hon’ble Apex Court, before affecting the arrest of the petitioner. 6. Petitioners are directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 21.02.2017, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation. 7. When the investigation of the case will be conducted, it will either culminate into filing of the charge-sheet or submission of final report. This Court has no occasion to interfere in the investigation in between. 8. Therefore, it will be of no use keeping the present criminal writ petition pending. Criminal Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of at the admission stage itself, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.